Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 9/17/25. Claims 1-11 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous 112,102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment. The amendment eliminates the Rusen reference as a 102 and 103 rejection because the carrier material is amended to exclude the ingredients disclosed in Rusen.
The following new ground of rejection is as followed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The applicant contains drawings figures 1-6; however, there is no Brief Description of the Drawing and description of the drawings in the specification. A brief description is required for application containing drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation of “ .05 to 5 TGU/g” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what the “ g” refers to. The claim also recites “ based on total weight of the bakery premix composition” but the bakery premix composition is not recited to be in. Thus, the scope of the claimed amount of TGU cannot be determined according of the claim. ( for prior art application, it’s interpreted to be based on per gram of flour. This is based on the disclosure on page 8 which describes testing of TGU/100g flour). Thus, the limitation is considered as .05-5TGU/g flour.
Claim 5 has the same problem as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Van Haesendonck ( WO 2019/081718) in view of Schuhmann ( EP 1190624) and Gottmann et al ( 5279839).
For claim 1, Van Haesendonck discloses a flour improver which is the same as the claimed bakery premix because the improver is mixed with other ingredients. The improver comprises non-wheat flour which is the same as the claimed carrier, pea protein and transglutaminase. ( see page 3 lines 4-10, page 12 lines 12-17, 25-30.
For claims 2-3, Van Haesendonck discloses flour in the improver in amount of 10-97.5% and includes rice flour, corn flour etc.. ( see col. 3 lines 4-8, col. 10 lines 10-14)
For claim 4, Van Haesendonck discloses the gel forming protein is in the range of 2-20% and the protein includes pea protein. ( see page 3 lines 4-10, page 12 lines 12-17)
For claims 6,7, Van Haesendonck discloses a flour formulation comprising wheat flour and the flour improver. The improver is used in amount between 7-60% in the flour formulation.( see page 3 lines 4-17)
For claim 8, Van Haesendonck discloses a flour formulation comprising wheat flour, transglutaminase and pea protein. ( see page 3 lines 4-17 and page 12 lines 12-17, 25-30)
Claim 10, Van Haesendonck discloses a flour formulation comprising 7-60% improver and the improver comprises 2-20% gel forming protein that includes pea protein. Thus, the amount of gel forming protein in the flour formulation can include .14% pea protein as the minimum ( 2/100X 7%)= .14%. This amount fall within the claimed range of .01-1% ( 100-10000ppm) ( see page 3 lines 4-17, page 12 lines 12-17)
For claim 11, Van Haesendonck discloses the amount of wheat flour in the flour formulation is between 40-93%. ( see page 3 lines 15-17)
For claims 12-17 Van Haesendonck discloses forming a batter using the flour formulation. The batter is considered to be the same as the claimed dough and the difference is only in the terminology because there is no limitation defining a dough. The batter in Van Haesendonck discloses the same ingredients. Furthermore, Van Haesendonck disclose a method for preparing a cake product comprising the steps of providing a flour improver, adding the flour improver or the chlorinated flour replacer to a dough and baking the dough to obtain cake product. Thus, Van Haesendonck also discloses a dough. Van Haesendonck discloses adding liquid including water. The batter additionally comprises fat, sugar and egg. Claims 15,17 recites the alternative and/or. Thus, it does not require all the ingredients listed. For claims 16,17, Van Haesendonck discloses mixing to form the batter or dough. ( see page 4 lines 6-24, page 28 lines 15-18 and example 1)
For claim 18-20, Van Haesendonck discloses baking to form baked product. For claim 20, Van Haesendonck discloses baked products including muffin which is a quick bread. The claim does not have any parameter defining bread. ( see page 28 lines 15-19, page 9 lines 5-13)
Van Haesendonck does not disclose the amount of transglutaminase as in claims 1,5,8 and 9.
Schuhmann discloses the use of transglutaminase in the production of bakery good from low wheat flour to give improvements in properties. The enzyme is used in amount of 10-5000TGU/100kg of flour ( .0001TGU/g-.05TGU/g). The use of transglutaminase gives minimal softness, stickiness and improves volume (see abstract of Schuhmann).
Schuhmann also refers to US patent no 5279839 ( Gottmann) which also discloses use of transglutaminase in baked products in amount of 100-10000/kg of flour ( .1-10 unit/g). Gottman discloses the amount can vary depending on the amount of protein of the flour and the way the enzyme is added. If it’s added as part of a baking agent, then the amount can be higher. ( see col. 2 of the patent)
Transglutaminase is known to be used to improve properties of bakery product as shown in Schuhmann and patent 5279839 referred to in Schuhmann. Van Haesendonck discloses the use of transglutaminase in the improver as an agent for modifying the protein as shown on page 12. But, on the bottom of page 20 through top of page 21, Van Haesendonck also discloses adding transglutaminase to the cake batter. As shown in patent 5279839 referred to in Schuhmann, transglutaminase can be added at different point during the processing of bakery product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add transglutaminase to the improver of Van Haesendonck as it’s known to add transglutaminase as part of baking agent in which baker add together with flour to make dough. All of Van Haesendonck, Schuhmann and patent 5279839 are directed to bakery products containing transglutaminase, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Schuhmann and patent 5279839 to determine the optimum amounts depending on the product made, protein content and the properties desired. The determination would only require routine experimentation with the guideline of amount disclosed in Schuhmann and patent no 5279839. Both Schuhmann and patent 5279839 disclose amounts falling within the claimed ranges. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
November 17, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793